Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion

To begin, instead of saying a statement is 'true but unprovable' --
which confuses a framework with its object respectively,

How do you get away with this??
This is just ridiculous beyond all reason.
Do you have the first clue what "respectively" means??
You have to have 4 things in order to use "respectively"
at all. They have to come in two pairs. One pair has to come
first and the other pair has to come second. If (a,b)
comes first and (c,d) comes second, then you use
"respectively" to associate a with c, and b with d.

How are you even managing to use "respectively"
AT ALL in this??

That's just the first half of the problem.

The second half is daring to attack Godel (of all people)
for a "framework/object" CONFUSION. The approach of
that proof is VERY clear on the DIFFERENCE between object-
language and META-language considerations. It is a classic
example of observing what YOU call the "framework"/"object"
distinction CAREFULLY AND CORRECTLY.